Non-arterial Riccarton Road : Brian Miller stirred by community board

ODT 28.5.16 (page 30)

ODT 17.5.16 (page 8)

[click to enlarge]
DCC Webmap – Riccarton Road, Mosgiel JanFeb 2013

Related Posts and Comments:
5.6.14 DCC Transport Strategy and Riccarton Road
24.4.14 DCC promotes Riccarton Rd as sole heavy traffic bypass

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

South Link Health, hmm that name….

South Link / Southlink

A little more city council-contrived MESS !!

—

### ODT Online Wed, 25 Feb 2015
Church sold car park land forless (sic) for sake of public good
By Shawn McAvinue
A land deal between the Dunedin City Council and St Margaret’s Church in Green Island built on “good faith” was about $100,000 shy of another offer tabled but was accepted by the parish because it would create a community asset, former city councillor Colin Weatherall said. Mr Weatherall […] said that as a councillor, he was involved in negotiations when the church sold land about six years ago. The church agreed on a price with the council because the land would be used for a public car park. That price was about $100,000 less than an offer by a property developer wanting to build flats on the land.
Read more

****

### ODT Online Wed, 25 Feb 2015
Support conditional on parking: Moyle
By Shawn McAvinue
A declaration of support for a proposed Green Island medical centre to be built on a public car park comes with conditions, businessman John Moyle said. Mr Moyle, the Green Island Business Association president and Saddle Hill Community Board member, said a Dunedin City Council letter declaring the association and board supported the sale of a public car park in Green Island to South Link Health Services Ltd was only half the story. The association and board supported the medical centre being built on the condition the car parks lost were found elsewhere, he said.
Read more

****

### ODT Online Thu, 12 Feb 2015
Parking fears with new health centre
By Shawn McAvinue
The likely sale of a busy car park to make way for a new health centre in Green Island will leave motorists searching for parking, a former city councillor and a businessman say. Concerns were also raised that the Dunedin City Council would profit from a land deal brokered on community goodwill.
Read more

● South Link Health Services: Green Island Medical Centre
● South Link Group
● South Link Health Services Limited (3162309) Registered

DCC Webmap – Green Island [click to enlarge]

—

PREVIOUSLY

### ODT Online Thu, 20 Mar 2014
Settlement offer made by SDHB
By Eileen Goodwin
The Southern District Health Board tried to settle its dispute with South Link Health by offering to halve the more than $7 million interest bill, correspondence about the row shows. […] The offer is disclosed in former health board chief executive Brian Rousseau’s correspondence. Previously, Mr Rousseau has taken issue with public statements from other parties indicating the board never raised a red flag about the possibility of fraud in the dispute.
Read more

****

### ODT Online Sat, 19 May 2012
Quiet agent of change
By Dene Mackenzie
From a top-floor corner office looking straight up Dunedin’s George St, Murray Tilyard is overseeing a medical group that is quietly changing the way health services are delivered to thousands of New Zealanders. That number is set to grow exponentially. […] The Helensburgh general practitioner is also the Dunedin School of Medicine Professor of General Practice and now the chief executive, or executive director, of a group of health entities revolutionising the delivery of some health services.
Read more

—

Related Comments at What if?
18.5.14 Anonymous #comment-49610 [explicit connections]
1.3.14 Elizabeth #comment-46131
19.2.14 Elizabeth #comment-45597

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC considers sale of “149 properties”

Tomorrow’s ODT carries carefully arranged details…

Kevin Taylor, City Property “good, bad and ugly” manager

—

Updated post 19.9.14 at 11:29 a.m.

### ODT Online Fri, 19 Sep 2014
$10m property sell-off possible
By David Loughrey
Houses, empty sections and parkland are among 149 parcels of property across Dunedin being considered for sale, as the city council looks to add $10 million to its coffers. The council released its “work in progress” list after a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request from the Otago Daily Times. […] Council infrastructure and networks general manager Tony Avery yesterday said the list was a starting point.
Read more

—

News conferred last week:
█ Cr Lee Vandervis now sits on the DCC Audit and Risk Subcommittee. [ Minutes ]

—

Related Posts and Comments:
15.9.14 Cull’s council spent the cash
11.9.14 DCTL: New treasury manager
1.9.14 DCC Fraud: Further official information in reply to Cr Vandervis
30.8.14 DCC Fraud: Cr Vandervis states urgent need for facts and the record…
27.8.14 DCC whitewash on serious fraud, steals democracy from citizens
26.8.14 DCC: Forensics for kids
23.8.14 DCC public finance forum 12.8.14 (ten slides)
22.8.14 DCC: Deloitte report referred to the police #Citifleet
7.8.14 DCC issues shoddy treatment to Caledonian Bowling Club
● 30.7.14 Dunedin City Council | Consolidated council debt
● 28.4.14 DCC loses City Property manager in restructuring
24.1.14 Stadium: It came to pass… [stadium review]
14.10.13 DCC: New chief financial officer
21.3.13 DCC: Opportunity created by Stephens’ departure
6.3.13 Carisbrook: Cr Vandervis elaborates
20.11.12 Dunedin City Council vs Anzide Properties decision…
9.6.12 City Property to compete more obviously in the market…

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: odt.co.nz (tweaked by whatifdunedin) – Kevin Taylor blackened, a bit

DCC Transport Strategy and Riccarton Road

### ODT Online Tue, 3 Jun 2014
Opinion
Transport strategy must respect personal needs
By Phil Cole
Dunedin has its own unique geographic, demographic and historical features that make any transportation planning in the city reliant on forward-thinking, rather than academic theoretical practices. The historical past of Dunedin’s transportation, however, should only be ignored at its peril. It is vitally important for Dunedin’s direction that any long-term transport planning is determined not by short-term populist ideas but by long-term growth, based on economic conditions, city development and people’s habits. It is equally important council land-use planning is closely aligned to, but does not determine, how the city can be rejuvenated.
Read more

****

Riccarton Rd resident Brian Miller said the council was not trying to reach a fair and reasonable settlement and valuations were being forced on landowners.

### ODT Online Wed, 4 Jun 2014
Offers prepared for land
By Shawn McAvinue
The land needed to widen Riccarton Rd will be obtained by statutory authority if a mutual agreement can not be met, Dunedin City Council roading projects engineer Evan Matheson says. […] Some landowners were hesitant to make land available, he said.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook: DCC losses

Dunedin City Council – Media Release

Carisbrook documents released

This item was published on 03 Jul 2013.

A large number of documents relating to the purchase and subsequent sale of Carisbrook have been released publicly today.

These can be found at www.dunedin.govt.nz/carisbrook-documents

The DCC bought the sportsground, surrounding houses and some vacant land from the Otago Rugby Football Union for $7 million in 2009. With the sale of Carisbrook confirmed last week, all the properties have been sold.

Contact DCC on 477 4000.

DCC Link

### ch9.co.nz July 3, 2013 – 6:35pm
Carisbrook sale costs city $2.3 million
The Dunedin City Council’s purchase, then sale of Carisbrook, has cost the city $2.3 million. But that figure, confirmed at a media conference today, is not the only drain on ratepayers. And while the release of costs ends a controversial era for the city, the vagaries of commerce, rather than the decisions of politicians, were blamed in the wash-up.
Video

### 3news.co.nz Wed, 03 Jul 2013 6:11p.m.
Ratepayers question Carisbrook sale
By Brooke Gardiner
Dunedin’s Carisbrook Stadium has been sold for $3.3 million, which is less than half what the Dunedin City Council paid when it bought the place three years ago. Construction company Calder Stewart bought the former sports ground for almost $4 million less than the council forked out to the Otago Rugby Football Union in 2009. And it could be three years before the council sees any money. The deal went unconditional last month, but the council’s only just released the finer details of the agreement.

“They have three and a half years to pay for it. We’re leaving the finance in and they’re paying us 5.5 percent on that money.”

Ruing the loss of ratepayer funds, Mayor Dave Cull says they should never have bought the stadium. “I opposed it at the time. I don’t think we should have bought it. I think we were buying it for the wrong reasons, but the choice over whether to buy it or not was not this council’s,” says Mr Cull.
Read more + Video

### ODT Online Wed, 3 Jul 2013
DCC confirms $2.3m Carisbrook loss
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council has confirmed a $2.3 million loss from the sale of Carisbrook, and revealed a complicated financial arrangement with the new owner. Mayor Dave Cull, at a media conference this afternoon, confirmed the council would recoup $4.7 million of the $7 million it paid for the historic sports stadium in 2009. However, Calder Stewart, the company that bought the ground off the council, had only been prepared to pay $3 million up front, Mr Cull confirmed. Instead, a deal had been struck that meant the company would pay at least $3.3 million, but deferred for up to three years, with payments made as the ground was subdivided and sold by Calder Stewart, he said. The sum paid would rise to $3.5 million if demolition was not completed within six months, meaning the council would keep a $200,000 bond paid by the company, Mr Cull said. The deal would also see the company make up any difference at the end of three years, meaning the council was guaranteed its money, he said.
Read more

● Full report in the ODT tomorrow

—

Related Posts and Comments:
27.6.13 State of the City —DCC or Dunedin?
28.5.13 Carisbrook: Auditor-General #fails Dunedin residents and ratepayers
23.5.13 Carisbrook: Calder Stewart to demo Dunedin’s historic stadium
20.3.13 Carisbrook: Shifting explanations for DCC $7m spend
6.3.13 Carisbrook: Cr Vandervis elaborates
6.3.13 Carisbrook: Question obfuscating mayor and council #rugby
20.2.13 Carisbrook: DScene suggests joint venture Calder Stewart / DCC

● List of Carisbrook posts back to 19 August 2008 [comment]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: Ch39 Dunedin News (3.7.13) – Paul Orders, Robert Clark, Dave Cull [screenshots]

Carisbrook: Calder Stewart to demo Dunedin’s historic stadium

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 05:00 22/05/2013
Carisbrook ground demolition plans under way
By Wilma McCorkindale – D Scene
Plans are afoot to demolish Dunedin’s historic rugby ground, Carisbrook, tender documents show. The company that has signed up to buy Carisbrook – Otago construction company Calder Stewart – has issued tender documents inviting demolition companies to register their interest in clearing the site this year. Calder Stewart co-managing director Peter Stewart declined to confirm the tender or give details. The company was still under a conditional contract for Carisbrook with the Dunedin City Council, therefore he would not comment on the project, Stewart said.
Read more

****

### ODT Online Thu, 23 May 2013
Plans to demolish Carisbrook
By Chris Morris
Calder Stewart has plans to demolish almost all of Carisbrook. The company bought the old stadium from the Dunedin City Council in a conditional deal in February for $3.3 million. Confirmation of the purchase appears to be due next month. Documents released to the Otago Daily Times yesterday confirmed the company planned to clear almost every structure from the former home of Otago rugby for future development.

The consent documentation also showed the demolition work was expected to cost the company $350,000.

Only the Neville St turnstile building would be spared, at least for now, as the Dunedin City Council and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust continue to discuss a covenant to protect the category one-listed structure. However, the Speight’s, Neville St, Rose and Railway stands would be demolished, as would the terrace hospitality complex, built for $4 million in 1994.
The details were spelled out in two building consents issued by council staff to Calder Stewart last month, and released to the ODT yesterday.
Read more

Related Post and Comments:
20.2.13 Carisbrook: DScene suggests joint venture Calder Stewart / DCC

For more, enter “carisbrook” in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Images (from top):
Carisbrook Stadium, two models by totara (sketchup.google.com)
Rugby at Carisbrook (3news.co.nz)
Carisbrook seating plan (ticketseating.com)
Carisbrook, Neville St turnstile building (historic.org.nz) [Jonathan Howard]
Carisbrook (teara.govt.nz) [file: p-22728-odt]

Carisbrook: Shifting explanations for DCC $7m spend

Register to read DScene online at http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

### DScene 20 Mar 2013
Rant or rave: your say
Missing million (pages 8-9)
By Terry Wilson – Parkside
We see in D Scene that the Dunedin City Council paid $7 million for Carisbrook while their confidential valuation was for only $2.5m.
Mayor Dave Cull said that the purchase was to shore up the finances of the Otago Rugby Football Union.
If the real purpose of the sale was to donate an overpayment of $4.5m to the ORFU, then the DCC has misled the public during the public consultation on the matter. It might be inappropriate for me to suggest that the $7m non-confidential valuation of Carisbrook was procured by the DCC for the purpose of justifying the undisclosed $4.5m overpayment to the ORFU.
The validity of this valuation seems very questionable to me. Following this $7m payment, the ORFU required a further DCC bailout. One factor in this is that they only received $6m, not $7m.
The DCC has been questioned many times about what happened to the missing $1m, but they won’t say.
I think the public wants to see more honesty from the DCC.

Mayor Dave Cull replies: ‘‘$7 million was paid to the ORFU by way of $5m in cash and a $2m offset of a loan of $2m previously lent from the council to the ORFU.’’ #bookmark

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook: Cr Vandervis elaborates

Comment received. See previous post.

DScene’s article today seems to have missed most points.
Feel free to use any of this email.

Cheers,
Lee

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:26:37 +1300
To: Wilma McCorkindale , EditorDscene
Conversation: Carisbrook offers.
Subject: FW: Carisbrook offers.

Hi Wilma and Mike,

I have sent and resent this email as below, and still have no response.
The 15 questions I had of the original deficient and leading Carisbrook Property report have been deleted below because they quote extensively from a non-public report.
What has been made public is the original report claim by DCC staff that ratepayers would only lose $100,000 on the proposed deal. This appalling untruth was ‘corrected’ as a result of my questioning of the report in a new set of figures so that we now know that the deal will result in losses of many millions. Just how many millions remains to be seen, and also depends on whether all the costs associated with purchasing Carisbrook and bailing out the ORFU are included.
I sent Bev Butler’s summation of losses as reported to staff for comment [as below] but have had no response to that either.

Councillors have a history of making bad enough decisions without staff giving them false figures and misleading reports on which to make decisions.
Strong evidence of other agendas and insupportable spin in much of our paperwork [the attempted Crematorium sale, and the Citibus sale were memorable examples] worsen a climate of distrust at the DCC and make reading masses of paperwork an exhausting suspicion-laden process.
Significant staff re-structuring is necessary if we are to change what has been a too long established culture of the DCC bureaucratic tail wagging the elected dog.

Kind regards,
Lee

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:55:28 +1300
To: Mayor Cull
Cc: Paul Orders , Sue Bidrose , Sandy Graham
Conversation: Carisbrook offers.
Subject: Re: Carisbrook offers.

Resent 27/02/13.

On 22/02/13 2:33 PM, “Lee Vandervis” wrote:

Dear Dave,

My extreme disappointment in staff misrepresentation of the Carisbrook offers [see initial questions asked of original leading report below] continues with the daily dissemination of apparently motion 4 “That the CE be authorized to work with the purchaser on a suitable media statement.”

In particular, your statement reported in the DScene that “There are details in there but as far as I’m concerned its a sale” is not factual. At best this agreement is for an option on Carisbrook in favour of Calder Stewart.
An option is very far from a sale.
You go on to add that “Many sales of property have conditions and this one is no different from that”. In fact this option agreement is different from most sales of property in that the purchaser does not have to put up any money, has no obligations and effectively is given 4 months to carry out an on-sale process which ratepayers have already paid [City Property] in the first instance, and Colliers Realtors subsequently to undertake. The 4 month due diligence period with no cash or obligation on the part of the option-holder is very unusual, especially when I have subsequently been advised that Calder Stewart were recently chased for this deal and had not even got round to viewing the property prior. After so many years why the sudden rush?

I have posed many Carisbrook proposal questions, some of which remain unanswered.
In particular, I still do not know if Murrayfield St is part of the Calder Stewart option, despite twice asking Robert [Clark].
I have had no explanation for the nature of the $200,000 value accruing to ratepayers from a rapid 6 month demolition, especially given the years of sales process procrastination.
I do not know whether all Carisbrook holding costs have been fully detailed – eg costs of valuations [I believe there have now been 3 of these] marketing costs etc.
I am still waiting to see all the valuations which ratepayers have paid for, for Carisbrook.

To date I have refrained from correcting public misrepresentations of the Carisbrook offer process, but continuing misrepresentation not only deceives the public but makes me complicit in this deception.
In my opinion immediate public release of all related documents is now necessary, given that most of it has been leaked anyway.
If this is not to happen, I feel duty bound to ratepayers to make correcting public statements and to explain my apparent inaction regarding this unfortunate spawn of misrepresentation.

Looking forward to any suggestions you may have.

Kind regards,
Lee

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:06:17 +1300
To: Paul Orders , Sue Bidrose , Sandy Graham
Conversation: Carisbrook sale?
Subject: Carisbrook sale?

Hi Guys,

Have you all seen this on What If, and can you dispute any of the figures?

Cheers,
Lee

Bev Butler
February 20, 2013 at 8:43 am
The Mayor seems confused over the $2m loan.
Maybe the figures below may clear things up.
They are as close as I can get based on the information in the media – there may be some slight discrepancies give or take a few hundred thousand.

Costs to DCC ratepayers for ORFU loan and Carisbrook
$2m loan to ORFU
$7m purchase of Carisbrook
$860,000 debt servicing, rates, electricity
$480,000 ORFU rent that was never paid to DCC and DVML (includes unpaid bill for ORFU booze up)
$250,000 contamination cleanup of carpark
$60,000 undisclosed?
TOTAL: $10,650,000 cost/debt

Payments received to date
$2m loan repayment
$727,000 sale of half carpark
$692,000 sale of houses
TOTAL: $3,419,000

TOTAL LOSS TO DATE: $7,231,000

It has been reported that a conditional agreement exists for Calder Stewart to buy Carisbrook for $3.3m. It has also been reported that the DCC will be involved in the development and that more money will be required by DCC.
Until details of the conditional agreement are released the public will not know how much of the $3.3m the DCC will eventually receive.

The minimum loss on Carisbrook is already over $4m but potentially may end up over $7m!

Bev Butler
February 20, 2013 at 10:42 am
Four months ago (9/11/12 see link below) it was reported in the ODT that the sale of Carisbrook would cover the $7m+ debt. Robert Clark went further than this claiming they hoped to make a profit. Where things stand at the moment the council has lost over $7m on the ORFU ‘deal’ and depending on how much cash Calder Stewart comes up with the so-called ‘deal’ will not be reduced below a $4m loss. This is why Russell and I have approached the Auditor General’s Office. How can a $7m registered valuation result in a minimum $4m loss and potentially be higher than $7m?

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/233986/hopes-sale-carisbrook
Asked if he [Robert Clark] hoped the sale of Carisbrook, once complete, would cover whatever debt remained, Mr Clark said: “I’m looking to achieve more than that.”

—— End of Forwarded Message

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook: Question obfuscating mayor and council #rugby

Image: 3news.co.nz

Register to read DScene online at
http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

### DScene 6 Mar 2013
Rant or rave – your say (page 7)
All sport, no balls
DScene (27/2/13) asks: ‘Who will be accountable for ratepayers stumping up $7m to buy Carisbrook when a documented valuation put the historic sports ground’s value at $2.5m?’
The simple answer, according to Mayor Dave Cull, is, ‘no one’.
Dave Cull has no concerns that the later, more upbeat valuation of $7m – designed to eliminate the ORFU’s debt and the burden of owning Carisbrook – was a commercial connivance done, on behalf of the ORFU, by the DCC. Isn’t it the job of the Mayor and his council to protect public money on behalf of all our citizens?
Isn’t it their job not to be cowered by a powerful cabal, protecting its own interests, above those of the whole city? Are we now hostages to threats of causing the financial ruin of Otago rugby, and the stadium, if we don’t provide an open cheque book, ad infinitum?
The council, despite having an observer on the ORFU, and having a continuing role in underwriting the financial future of the ORFU/ stadium, is still not privy to any ‘opening of the books’ by the ORFU, for public scrutiny, under the guise of ‘commercial sensitivity’. We pay up on trust.
It’s about time we all stood up to the council and demanded an end to this ongoing rort. Otherwise we only have ourselves to blame for a deteriorating financial system that ultimately we all pay for through our rates.
I urge Dave Cull and his council to get some testicular fortitude and stand up for us.
Peter Attwooll, City Rise
#bookmark

—

### DScene 6 Mar 2013
Questions over Carisbrook (page 3)
By Wilma McCorkindale
Dunedin city councillor Lee Vandervis has demanded satisfaction regarding what he describes as repeatedly unanswered questions surrounding the sale of Carisbrook. Vandervis remains livid that figures in a Carisbrook property report to the last council meeting had to be rewritten at the eleventh hour because they were deficient. He said he still had questions around the figures and had submitted them to staff and mayor Dave Cull many times. ‘‘And I haven’t got answers to all of them yet.’’ On top of that Vandervis was concerned about statements Cull was making in the media about the sale of Carisbrook. Vandervis disagreed with some of the perceptions Cull was giving. Cull rejected the criticisms. Figures in the Carisbrook report had not been incorrect, rather incomplete, he said.
{continues} #bookmark

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook: DScene suggests joint venture Calder Stewart / DCC

Register to read DScene online at http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

### DScene 20.2.13
End of the line? (page 1)
The famed Carisbrook sports ground has found a buyer, but the deal seems unlikely to derail criticism of the sale process. See page 3.

Mayor won’t confirm or deny details of sale (page 3)
By Wilma McCorkindale
Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull will neither confirm or deny the possibility the city has made a deal in lieu of an immediate cash sale for Carisbrook. Cull said he could not comment on reports a joint venture between the Dunedin City Council (DCC) and construction company Calder Stewart is incorporated into a deal for the sale of Carisbrook – the sale of which was announced a week ago.

‘‘I can’t confirm or deny the detail,’’ Cull said. ‘‘There are details in there but as far as I’m concerned it’s a sale. Many sales of property have conditions and this one is no different from that. ‘‘What I’m saying is I can’t divulge those because they are commercially sensitive at the moment, confidential. As far as I’m concerned in the big wash-up this is a sale of that property to Calder Stewart.’’

Two critics of Dunedin City Council have this week laid formal complaints to the Office of the Auditor-General and asked it to incorporate the Carisbrook sale into its current investigation of council-related property deals.

DScene asked Cull if Calder Stewart was paying for the ground upfront in cash once the sale went through. ‘‘I didn’t say that,’’ he said. ‘‘I just said it’s a sale to Calder Stewart. The details of how they pay for it are part of the confidential part of the details. I can’t comment on that.’’
{continues} #bookmark

—

Editorial: Council secrecy creates bad blood (page 8)
By Mike Houlahan
Announcing a conditional sale to an anonymous buyer for an undisclosed amount was never going to be a sustainable position.
{continues} #bookmark

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook: Channel 9 interviews Cull

### ch9.co.nz February 19, 2013 – 6:59pm
Nightly interview: Dave Cull
The Carisbrook Stadium hit the news last week, when it emerged building company Calder Stewart had put in an offer of $3.3 million for land. All sorts of figures have been bandied about in the media in relation to the sale of the ground, which was bought by the Dunedin City Council as it developed Forsyth Barr Stadium. Mayor Dave Cull joins us to shed some light on the issue.
Video

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook: Dear Dave . . .

Received from Rob Hamlin
Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:05 p.m.

—

Dear Dave

I see that in the ODT today you signed off with the following statement:

“A valuation is not a promise.”

Is it not indeed, Dave. Well if it not a promise, then what is it? A registered valuation costs money, a lot of money and they registered valuers are members of a professional association – that’s why they are called REGISTERED valuers. A registered valuation may not be promise to get a value right to within the dollar, but I would say that such a valuation a professional service on which serious decisions are routinely based and as such it IS a promise to get the value right to within a reasonable margin of error. 100% plus is not a reasonable margin of error – Nossir!

I note however that the ‘registered’ bit is missing off your statement above. This raises a number of interesting possibilities. Let’s deal with them one at a time:

1) —You simply forget to put the ‘registered’ bit into the statement above and you really do hold a registered valuation that is in line with the price that the DCC paid the ORFU for Carisbrook and the adjoining properties. If that’s the case, then I think that you really do need to have a serious word with this individual, and that you may have to get in line with the Valuers Registration Board who deal with complaints. The following is lifted from their website at http://www.linz.govt.nz/valuation/valuers-registration-board#apply

Complaints about a registered valuer
The VRB may discipline registered valuers who do not meet its standards and requirements in carrying out their work. If you are not satisfied with the valuation done by a registered valuer on a property, you can formally apply to the VRB to have your complaint investigated.

Contact
Valuers Registration Board
PO Box 5501
Wellington
Phone +64 4 460 0110 FREE +64 4 460 0110
Fax +64 4 498 9699

If you hold a registered valuation that is for this amount then the registered individual who provided it may be culpable to a major degree in the loss of $3 million plus of ratepayers’ money and a formal complaint is not only recommended, but actually forms a public duty that you MUST perform. If they did indeed tender this valuation to you as a registered valuation, then either this individual was misled in their brief, in which case the nature of the misleading should be clear from their valuation report, or their professional services would appear to fall very far short of reasonable expectations, and they need to be publicly identified and dealt with pronto before they do any more damage of this scale and nature. As I have said previously, a Barbary Ape can value a property to within 20% in a stable market – I think it is very unlikely that the board would have much basis to seriously argue the point if you get the ball rolling now.

2) —You mean what you say and the valuation was not supplied by a registered valuer. Valuers have to undertake a good deal of training before they can become registered valuers. There is a reason for this, as I stated above major decisions are routinely made upon the basis of the valuations that they provide, and for this reason they must be accurate to within an acceptable margin, and many would think that 20% is the outer limits of this.

If for whatever reason a registered valuer was not the source of this information, then this is a serious matter. Paying this much for a property on the basis of a non-registered valuation would appear to be at the least grossly negligent and at worst reckless. The latter would be a perfectly reasonable charge given that the value is grossly out of line with not only the CV of the properties concerned, but also with other professional reports that assessed the value of the properties when budgets for the finding of the Forsyth Barr Stadium were being presented as a justification for approving the project. Incidentally, these valuations (acquired by stripping blacking off censored documents released by the DCC – see What if? Dunedin for details) appear to have been pretty much exactly in line with the price that you have been offered by Calder Stewart. They were presumably supplied by a registered valuer and it might serve you well to attempt to obtain a copy for the purposes of comparison.

Recklessness, of course, also opens up any elected member who voted for the purchase at this price or was in any way implicated in it to personal liability under the Local Government Act. A strong case for personal liability could be made with regard to this purchase if this is the valuation did not come from a registered valuer. If it did, then a Feltex-type defence on the basis of accepting professional advice in good faith may be made – but only if the source of the valuation was a registered valuer – a professional in the eyes of the law.

3) —You may have been misinformed and no valuation of any type was acquired at all before Carisbrook and adjoining properties were purchased for the amount of $7 million.

If this is the case, then all of the comments relating to Option Two above apply, plus it may be possible to add deliberate deceit to the list. The problem with deceit as with perjury is proving intent. However, in this case it is hard to see how an assertion that a registered valuation formed a basis of the decision to purchase could be made inadvertently in the absence of the valuation that is being cited. I seem to recall that a valuation has been cited on multiple occasions as a justification for paying this price.

All in all, Dave, it’s a messy situation that looks likely to get a lot messier. Both you and the ODT are on the back foot here – information is leaking out of the DCC like a sieve, and the wider public who have been largely snoozing through the events of the last four years finally seem to be waking up in numbers to just exactly what has been going on.

So, if you value your political neck and your mayoral chain, I recommend that you release this valuation document forthwith. It is now a historical document and has no current commercial value, so forget about that line of defence if it is offered to you. Ignore privacy claims for the valuer. If it is a registered valuation, then it is a professional document provided for money, and it’s yours to do with as you please. You can post A1 sized copies of it in all the public loos in the City if that’s your fancy – although you may be wise not to comment on its merits, subsequent events will do that more eloquently than anything you or I could produce. If it’s not a registered valuation, then I would be pretty confident that the same rules apply if a fee was charged for it.

If you can produce a registered valuation for $7 million, then I cannot see that either you or any of your colleagues have any sort of a problem. All the problems will be at the door of the valuer and their professional body – which is why I am mystified as to why you have not yet produced it – if you have it.

If it was a verbal valuation, and you can establish that it does not exist, then I suggest you come clean about it, and identify those responsible for making the decision to purchase Carisbrook at this price without it right now. I do not think that you were involved, so why should you sacrifice your political career in an attempt to protect those who are?

If the document has been ‘lost’ then I would suggest that you make vigorous attempts to find it. Failing this, you may wish to establish who provided the valuation – the possibilities within this community are manageable. You may find that the identity of the valuer has been ‘forgotten’ by all involved. OK, these people keep records. Get copies of the Yellow Pages back to 2009 and go through every registered valuer in the region, call them and see if any of them can recall issuing this valuation. Enlist the help of Valuers Registration Board. I am sure that they will be interested if their members’ reputation is being collectively put on the line by a bunch of amnesics.

You may both end up drawing a blank, but at least it will be a decisive one that you can report to the community and allow them to draw their own conclusions.

Think it over Dave, but don’t think too long. This time I don’t think that you have the luxury of leisure.

Rob Hamlin

[ends]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook: Call for OAG investigation into DCC / ORFU deals

Time for Public Vote of No Confidence in your Council?

Latest via Fairfax . . . local residents Bev Butler and Russell Garbutt are calling for an investigation into Dunedin City Council deals involving Carisbrook and the ORFU (professional rugby).

—

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 10:38 15/02/2013
Call for Carisbrook losses to be investigated
By Wilma McCorkindale – DUNEDIN
Critics of Dunedin City Council say more losses of millions of dollars for city ratepayers from the sale of Carisbrook should be included in a current Auditor General’s investigation. The Office of the Auditor-General is investigating other property deals by the council’s companies.
Russell Garbutt and Bev Butler, both critics of financial arrangements between the council and the Otago Rugby Football Union (ORFU), say the millions of dollars in losses incurred by city ratepayers in the sale of Carisbrook require explanation.
The council has entered a conditional sale agreement to unload Carisbrook, which it bought from the financially ailing ORFU for $6 million in 2009. It paid $1 million for adjacent housing owned by an ORFU trust resulting in the council borrowing the $7 million total package price. The council is releasing few other details about the sale agreement but it is being widely reported that construction company Calder Stewart is the buyer, for $3.5 million. Council had reportedly already sold half the car parking for $727,000 and the housing was sold some time ago for $692,000.
Ms Butler believed an investigation should be included in one under way by the Office of the Auditor-General into council-owned company land deals in the Lakes District. ”Obviously there are some questions that still need to be answered in terms of the actual value of the Carisbrook property.”
Mr Garbutt described the Carisbrook deals as extraordinary.
Read more

****

Councillors Kate Wilson and Richard Thomson should be DUMPED

### ch9.co.nz February 15, 2013 – 6:49pm
Auditor General advises councillors they can participate
The Auditor General has advised two DCC councillors they can participate in decisions on an Events Attraction Fund. Richard Thomson and Kate Wilson declared their business interests at an Annual Plan Meeting in January. Both said their businesses benefited from the Elton John Concert. They were excluded from participating and voting on proposed events. The Office of the Auditor General says while they were affected in a similar way to the public they would not be prohibited in participating.
Ch9 Link

Related Post and Comments:
29.1.13 Pecuniary interest: Crs Wilson and Thomson in events fund debate

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr